The Worth of Direct Response KnowledgeMail marketing is a science, and CMOs should treat it like oneLeader Column by Steve Cuno in the new issue of Deliver

NOTE: I meet many marketing managers who know precious little about marketing. Many seem to assume that having the job makes them experts. This Leader Column for Deliver was my gentle attempt at suggesting that they might want to bone up. I entertain no fantasies that I made a dent, but at least it was fun to write. To download the current issue of Deliver, click here.

If you have worked in direct response mail for more than a few minutes, chances are you have heard your profession referred to as “scientific marketing.”

It is not hyperbole. Testing, retesting and predicting — the direct marketer’s stock-in-trade—are the basis of the Hypothetico Deductive Model, which scientists generally agree is the definition of science itself. That means that the very process by which direct marketers uncover what works and what doesn’t is the same process by which scientists figure out the universe. Scientists (and direct marketers) routinely publish their findings, which other scientists (and direct marketers) then duplicate, test and validate. Then they build upon those findings, and in turn share what they learn. In this way, the body of scientific (and direct marketing) knowledge grows to the benefit of all. Isaac Newton summed it up when he famously said, “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”

But giant shoulders provide an advantage only when people bother to seek out and stand atop them. Einstein did not arrive at the Special Theory and, later, General Theory of Relativity in ignorance of Newton’s laws. He was able to think outside the box precisely because he had first acquainted himself with what was inside it.

The direct mail industry has no shortage of giants with solid shoulders. From nearly two centuries of tracking results, direct marketing has amassed a great deal of knowledge — indeed, scientific knowledge — as to what works. By learning and relying on that knowledge, direct marketers can increase ROI faster and spend less money doing it. Those who overlook it risk wasting valuable time and resources reinventing the wheel — or, worse, testing square ones.

A body of tested, retested, predictive knowledge is part of what makes direct mail much more than “just another communication medium.” With today’s tight budgets, a working knowledge of proven practices gives direct marketers a clear and distinct advantage.

And, as with Einstein, knowing what’s inside the box puts you in a position to better work outside it — responsibly. In turn, you’ll have an opportunity to add your own discoveries to an ever-growing repository of useful marketing knowledge.

I just met with a group planning to run a controversial ad campaign. That I am not a fan of the campaign was neither here nor there. The real question was, would the campaign accomplish the group’s objective?

So, I asked what the objective was. To keep this post simple, I’ll say they wanted to achieve Outcome A.

Trouble was, it seemed to me that the campaign was more likely to produce Outcome B instead. Those of you who know me will not be surprised to learn that I had no better sense than to say so.

Their reply? “Yeah. That’s what we’re hoping for.”

Hold on. Outcome B was at odds with Outcome A. I wasn’t smart enough to keep that to myself, either. Group members defended the campaign, pointing out that in other markets it had achieved Outcomes C and D.

I may be slow, but I finally realized that they really liked this campaign. They just plain wanted to run it. In fact, running it was the objective. Any outcome would do.

Which was their privilege. And I have to admit, in no way would they end up disappointed. When any outcome will do, you cannot fail. Even when results are negative. Or nil.

But launching a campaign and devising ad hoc objectives to justify it after the fact is strategically backward. It’s like throwing a dart and then designating wherever it sticks as your target. Usually, the more productive course is to identify a target and then aim for it.

When an association’s membership or participation wanes, leaders often assume that the problem is with those darned members, who just don’t get it. This in turn leads to discussions about how to better communicate all the advantages of full participation in, say, the Alliance for the Preservation of Used Coffee Grounds.

A more useful discussion opens with, “Are we relevant?” If the answer is an honest “yes,” then, fine, look for ways to better communicate as much. But if member participation is dropping off, chances are the answer is an honest “no.” That leads to another useful question: “What changes should we make to re-become relevant?"

Following the introduction of a polio vaccine, March of Dimes reinvented itself. You may have noticed that it is still viable. By contrast, not too many people are lining up to join the Flat Earth Society.* (There really is one, and they really do think they’re right.)

Today the FDA announces new packaging rules for cigarettes. Packages will be required to display a graphic photo of the effects of smoking at their ugliest, as pictured above, along with one of a choice of direct statements such as “Smoking can kill you.”

I’m all for it, even though it is not lost on me that our government is financially dependent on tax revenue from the very habit it purports to seek to end.

Earlier this week as we were seated at a Dallas restaurant, our server replaced our white napkins (serviettes for those of you outside the U.S.) with black ones. Having noticed our dark suits, he was rescuing us from ending up with white lint all over our laps.

As one who has emerged from many a business lunch trying to brush embarrassing and annoying lint from my lap, I appreciated it and was impressed.

In a high-tech innovation world, it’s all too easy to assume that there remain no low-tech opportunities to outshine the competition. Nonsense. Such opportunities abound. All it takes is a service orientation and some imagination.

This just in from Marketing Daily: “A new study by Ace Metrix reveals there is little difference in advertising effectiveness among so-called engaged viewers and those who are not as involved with the program … The most important factor in ad effectiveness is relevance.”

These are startling new insights? Let’s look at each one.

Regarding viewer engagement with programming: Direct marketers have known this all along. How? Not from studies and surveys, which are powerless to provide anything beyond the inferential. Instead, we try things and then, instead of asking people what they think or measuring what they remember, we watch to see if they buy anything. Yeah, I know. Old-fashioned, isn’t it.

Had Metrix asked us, we could have told them something else. When you want people to call a toll-free number, response increases as viewer involvement in programming decreases. That is why you never see direct response commercials — at least, from advertisers who know what they’re doing — during Prime Time. The fact that non Prime Time schedules cost less is a happy coincidence.

As for the importance of relevance: If your advertising agency needed research to tell them that, fire them.

If P.T. Barnum ever said that all publicity is good publicity, he was mistaken.

Sure, you can find cases where what at the time seemed like bad publicity later proved harmless or even helpful to an image or career. Bill Clinton. Oprah and the Texas Cattlemen. Tylenol.

But cherry-picking cases to support a premise is useless. It’s called selection bias, and it’s like digging out only green M&Ms from a bag and insisting you have proved that all M&Ms are green.

On the other hand, reverse selection bias can disprove. All it takes is a red, yellow, blue or brown M&M to disprove the claim that all M&Ms are green.

So to disprove the “no such thing as bad publicity” myth, we need only find cases in which bad publicity caused a product or celebrity long-term harm (even if they eventually recovered). Cases like, say, Pee Wee Herman, whose considerable fame grew exponentially thanks to an event that simultaneously halted his career. Or Mark Sanford, who famously hiked the Appalachian Trail right out of the South Carolina governorship. Or Richard Nixon, for whom bad publicity brought about a premature departure from the White House. Or televangelist Peter Popoff, whose career ended on the day James Randi and Joe Nickell caught him getting “revelations” about the needs of believers through a tiny, in-ear receiver, which just happened to be picking up a radio signal, which just happened to come from a microphone elsewhere in the building, into which his wife just happened to be reading from notes she just happened to have gathered while visiting with believers before the service. (Incredibly, today, some 25 years later, Popoff is back in the religion business.)

The “no such thing as bad publicity” myth is a restatement of the myth that “getting your name out there” is all there is to good advertising. Nonsense. Better than 50 years later, the Ford Edsel name is still out there. Perhaps you heard: during those five decades, Ford hasn’t sold too many Edsels.

So not all publicity is good. What about most publicity? That’s another matter. It would make an interesting study.